Let's start by toning down the hyperbole. No one is advocating that everyone be armed. Please stop repeating this.
As long as there's people with guns and people without guns, there'll be situations where people without guns get mowed down by people with guns. And every single time the solution is more guns to more people in more places. Where does it end? Do you think a bunch of drunken people at a night club armed with guns is a good idea? You think 6-8 years olds with guns is okay? You think 9yos should be firing Uzis? There is no end for some people, not until every toddler and up is armed 24x7. Unless they don't want to, but then they're naive for not wanting to since they can't stop the bad guys. Yes, there are those who want to push guns into the hands of all that are reluctant too, just like they won't eat broccoli.
That explains how systemd worked, too. Systemd talked a lot with the people who write startup scripts, at both redhat and debian. They tried to be responsive to their concerns, and give them what they wanted, which is why systemD succeeded. Just as notable is who is missing from the dialog: the actual users. Which explains why systemd made startup-script writers happy, and a bunch of users upset.
But do (non-paying, non-contributing) users really matter? Debian has their "do-ocracy", those who do the job decide what to do and how to do it. Linus has been saying much the same about the kernel:
Jim Zemlin: Let's look a level deeper at the social interaction because open source is often described as this sort of democratizing process that, you know, everyone has a say, there's this grand consensus, but at the end of the day, needs to be some sort of decisiveness when it comes to making decisions. How do you deal with that?
Linus Torvalds: Well, I mean, it's really not a democracy at all and some people call it a meritocracy which is not necessarily correct either. It's - I have a policy that he who does the code gets to decide, which basically boils down to there's a - it's very easy to complain and talk about issues and it's also easy for me to say, 'You should solve it this way.'
But at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is actual code and the technology itself and the people who are not willing to step up and write that code, they can comment on it and they can say it should be done this way or that way or they won't, but in the end their voice doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is code.
And it turns out people are lazy, so most people are much happier just arguing and quite often you only have one set of - one example code and there's not a lot of real choice there. You - there's not a lot of people who are competent enough to really do kernel programming and also not lazy enough that they actually get the job done.
As an end user, I've certainly had situations which pretty much amounts to "we don't give a shit", "you got what you paid for" and "if you don't like it, do it yourself". If application developers and system administrators get a taste of their own sour medicine, maybe they'll figure out what I did - your voice is pretty worthless. What you get is the scraps of whatever itch the developer had that overlaps with yours, if they don't care about your use case then tough luck. Those who do will do whatever they want to do, the rest will have to suck it up. Kettle, meet Poettering.
Well we don't let kids buy porn magazines and we don't let kids buy liquor and we don't let them buy guns, it's not like third parties can disclaim any and all liability for everything because if the parents weren't there to stop them it must have been okay. Not saying I completely disagree with you, but the whole "the copyright holders have the primary responsibility so they have the sole responsibility" logic doesn't add up.
Well, except the whole part about "the cloud" is that you don't particularly know or care where the server is, who's running it or who's got admin access. It just scales up and down, they provision something for you somewhere on some hardware. If you only look at external hackers then sure internet facing == internet facing and if that's the only threat scenario you care about, fine. Go put it in the cloud.
We have evidence that ordinary cells have a finite number of divisions due to telomeres, but we also know there's an enzyme called telomerase that can extend them. This remains active in egg and sperm cells so we can continue to go on as a species forever and for normal life spans there's enough divisions in ordinary cells. In the lab, we've extended normal cells' lifetime way past their ordinary limit with telomerase. So why don't we have immortal cells by default? It's probably a fail safe, if a cell starts reproducing extremely fast without working around this limit it'll fizzle and become little more than a harmless lump.
There's some indications that as we push for 100+ year lifespans we might be running out of divisions leading to among other things a weaker immune system because we lack white blood cells. It might be that we will develop telomere extension therapy to give us a few more regenerations (hello Dr. Who), but as you can probably tell the main problem today is that cells start dividing like crazy, not that they stop dividing. And if we made all cells immortal with genetic manipulation, all it'd take is one cell short circuiting the reproduction speed to cause cancer and kill the host. So if we want natural immortality we need to find a way to stop that first or we'll all die of cancer instead of aging.
I might be convinced that it's somehow earth's method of population control, that if lifespans are shortened so the overall population is more manageable or something along those lines;
Doesn't really work that way, if people reproduce at 30 and die at 50 or 100 or 200 that only adds a constant factor to the total population. It might lead to one-time "fill-up" effects where new children are born and old people die later because of longer lifespan adjusting that factor, but the only long term control on population is the reproduction rate. And during reproductive growth the young outnumber the old simply because there's more in this generation than in the last.
This is why people are no longer so extremely worried about population explosion, birth rates are way down and trending down but due to an aging population and advances in healthcare we will become closer to 10 billion. Europe and North America is below replacement fertility but still growing because of this, Asia and Latin American spot on, Oceania slightly above and then there's Africa which is still way high but below the world average from 1950-1970.
High reproduction is also related to extreme poverty, basically if you need many children to support you when you grow older it is "necessary" to have many. Sure most people still like to have kids but only a few and not a whole bunch. China and India seem to be pulling people out of extreme poverty quite quick, so I think they're moving into "safer" territory there. Africa is again challenging, you have countries like Nigera still in explosive growth and GDP per capita barely increasing, only 60% of the population is even literate.
That said, they're seeing a communications revolution in the last decade in Africa, from almost nobody having a cell phone almost everyone has one, smartphone penetration is low but not absent. I think that'll have a big effect on education and literacy but it'll take a few decades to really show net results. With the exception of certain retards in the Middle East that want to bring us back to the Dark Ages, things are actually progressing quite well. A bit worried about mass surveillance and authoritarian states, but not overpopulation and lack of basic necessities.
That's horribly naive. Even if the interface claims that it's "off," there is no proof and no reason whatsoever to trust it. Trust comes from being able to read the source code (all of it), compile it yourself, and load it on the device. Nothing less.
Without the hardware schematics and someone who can verify them there's no way to know what the hardware really does no matter what software you load on it. For example say there's a secret 1kB buffer that'll store the last 32 AES256 or 64 AES128 keys you've used with AES-NI, totally invisible. If you place the right 256-bit magic value in registers R12-R15 and call RDRAND, instead of doing its usual thing then and only then will it dump the keys out to you as "random" bits XOR'd with a second secret value. You can verify the source all day, you can audit the system in production, you can search for the keys popping up in memory and you'll find nothing.
I would think the opposite situation is more dangerous, you review something under NDA but the features/quality/price isn't right then a few years later you want to make something in the same ballpark and you get sued. If developing it in-house still is an option I wouldn't do it, only if you were trying to pick which third party to buy. Then you have a plausible excuse that yes, we bought your competitor and of course their technology is fairly similar to yours but nothing illegal happened here. Even though I'm sure someone took notes on what features they were missing that could be added to the company they did buy.
This man's kid got brutally killed by a terror organization continuing to spread propaganda and recruitment material, I'd call that a valid excuse for being angry and irrational kicking in every direction. Now if this guy actually won that'd be a different story, but the legal system is going to say "we sympathize wth your loss, but no". In fact, if it wasn't so grim he'd be laughed out of court. I'm not sure how that would be "devolving" anything, would it be more "evolved" if he went postal in a mosque? Because I kinda got the impression you seem to think the problem is we don't fight back. At least not in the same way.
This also adds a single point of failure to all ISP offerings.
True, but most areas with fiber effectively become single-supply since there's very, very little incentive to lay down a second fiber grid. At least here in Norway they'll usually get 70-90% to sign up and the other fixed offers go away since mobile broadband usually works as a temporary solution. And they certainly could do redundant connections and data centers for everything but the last leg, so one guy with a backhoe can't take out more than a small neighborhood. In practice though peering points tend to concentrate anyway, there's a few hubs where almost every major ISPs is represented, they're there because everyone else is there - literally network effects at work.
and we would somehow have to send and receive a beam (because sending one way is useless) when there is no way to guarantee where the other point will be due to all the exotic forces in the universe. Sounds like magic.
While we don't exactly understand why the stars seem to be affected by a gravitational pull from dark matter, doesn't mean we can't measure the relative motion with a very high degree of accuracy. It is highly likely that our ability to predict the source of a transmission and the place we'd need to aim to reply - down to arc-milliseconds - far exceeds our ability to focus a beam so narrowly.
Musk has said that mankind's long term future lies in colonizing the solar system. Setting up a doomed-to-fail Mars experiment is a good way to discourage people to do that : he's too smart for that.
He's smart, but he could become blinded by how important the colonization is to him and start thinking the ends justifies the means and overestimate the public's willingness to risk lives and underestimate the backlash from dead astronauts or settlers. Not as in doomed to fail, but that his idea of acceptable risk might not be the same as the general public's, which absolutely have the power to shut him down if they feel he's playing fast and loose with human lives. Even if the numbers don't come close to the losses in Iraq or Afghanistan, don't expect people to be rational about it even though this is arguably far more important for the human race.
He completely forgot to code after just six years, after having been able to code well enough to completely automate his job six years into the future...
Yeah it's like: a) Short of a brain hemorrhage or stroke, you totally forget to code b) You got a crystal ball good enough to predict six years ahead c) You can code well enough to automate it already now d) All of the above
The new nVidia GPUs have quite high TDP sadly... Will these new AMD ones go as low as the GTX 750 Ti? Those were great for fanless operation.
Some models will, but almost certainly not the RX480. I think the suggestion is roughly GTX950 performance for 50W, nVidia lists the power draw of a 750 Ti as 60W. Of course these are all marketing slides, not third party reviews but yeah the power savings from 28nm to 14nm are substantial.
I don't know whether there is something sinister emerging in the financials which the public can't see, but both Sony and MS seem to be spooked in a way that the numbers don't quite support
Well if there's any sinister in the financials, I'd suggest it is AMD begging/tricking them to make a new round of consoles so they can earn some more money. Maybe they've stealthily planted the idea that the other company was going to launch a half-gen console creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, maybe they offered a deal too good to refuse. It's no secret that AMD needs money to stay afloat....
What are you talking about? All of these mass murders in the last 6 months have been by Islamists and half of them were outside of the US. France has some of the strictest gun laws in the world. People were mowed down with AK-47s anyway. Belgium they got the same effect with bombs. You people talking as if this is a U.S. problem with guns are going to cost more people's lives.
I think the US has a gun problem, but not particularly related to terrorism or heavy organized crime, not even premediated murder. If you really want to commit mass murder or pull off an armed heist, it's possible to get guns in Europe too. And if you just want to kill your ex, there's other weapons that'll work in close proximity but not start a killing spree. It's the more everyday crime like burglary, mugging and robbery or conflicts at home or at work that didn't have to escalate into anyone getting shot and killed which make up the bulk of the difference. And I don't think more guns stop the big killing sprees because they'll hit soft spots and there'll always be soft spots, you can't protect everyone like you do the President. So in sum I think it's a net loss, for every time you stopped a shooter there were three "shooters" stopped by not having a gun.
Most people who think homosexuality is something horrible think so because Abrahamic religions in general and Islam in particular have been saying that for 2000 years. But it might have been more "the enemy (IS) of my enemy (gays) is my friend" than any deep religious commitment. Doesn't matter, I doubt all the people who fought for the Nazis were die-hard ideologists either.
Many atheists treat the non-existence of god(s) like a fact just like the religious treat the existence as fact, that their belief is the only right belief and all other beliefs are wrong. Sure, atheists have no religious practices but they can be just as insistent on spreading their belief, shutting down alternate beliefs and intolerant of those who believe differently than themselves. As much as it'd probably be more scientifically correct to be an agnostic I have problems respecting people who believe in adult fairy tales just like superstition and astrology or that there's goblins and gremlins. I can't prove it, but yeah... I'm going to act like this is all a bunch of mumbo-jumbo with no basis in reality.
Well it might have meant that she didn't want her name published, so that she'd forever be the terrorist's ex-wife on Google. The statements themselves hardly seem like the kind you need protection of anonymity to say.
The messiness of the whole fay marriage fight and the rise in popularity of intolerance in national discourse was a big factor in my initial response and this could go a long way to heal that rift.
I'm sure Sookie Stackhouse will be glad, but I didn't know you guys took True Blood that seriously...
We need to capture people like Mateen alive, so that their minds can be disassembled using the latest techniques to root out the ISIS command trees in Western countries. Every dead terrorist is a good terrorist, but it's also one we can't get information from.
How much of a "command structure" do you need for a lone gunman? If he contacted IS - which is as of yet unclear, or if he just pledged to join their fight - there's no guarantee that he knew anyone or had anyone local who had turned him into a radical. He was angry and wanted to shoot up a gay club, since this is the US he already had the guns so is there any indication IS was more involved than *thumbsup*? This was not Paris or Brussels with many attackers and IEDs, there's no indication this was really organized or trained in any way.
Those who accept "reasonable" exceptions to the Second Amendment should not be surprised when "reasonable" exceptions to the Fourth (or any other) Amendment are also accepted.
If the first amendment didn't have exceptions, threats, fraud, libel, slander, false advertisement, grooming and a ton of other crimes couldn't be crimes. Heck, I could order a hit man to kill you. The truth is, the bill of rights sucks as a legal document by any modern standard. Almost no term is defined, it says you will have "due process" but what that means is only vaguely guessed from contemporary documents, which can obviously contain conflicting and controversial meanings that might not reflect what Congress meant.
It's a great propaganda flyer, this is how the US will be different from the British, these are values we cherish and hold dear and it's written in terms and a structure so simple an 18th century man might understand his rights. But as an actual piece of legislation that a court has to try to deal with, it's in desperate need of interpretation. And that's not the sign of well written law.
Too bad Google's on the wrong side of history here.
Considering history is written by the winners and all the rich and powerful are in favor of TPP, I wouldn't bet on it. Google's on top now, they make lots of money and can deal with the overhead of the DMCA, the "right to be forgotten" and various rules and requirements. They know their startup competitors will struggle more than they do, it's securing their own business.
Well, that's one way of looking at it. The other is that Microsoft had to cater to the lowest common denominator with big scary warning dialogs when you did something potentially stupid. And that they did that because it was new and people were ignorant, but that as a computer literate generation grew up they thought they could start taking off the training wheels. I mean, it's not like Linux gives you much warning when you break shit, yeah you might have to invoke sudo but that is the universal "trust me, I know what I'm doing" code word. And of course you'll take the shit in the forums if you don't know what you're doing, but reality is people use computers despite that. Personally I think the current button is fine, I need a choice not a lecture.
The idea that the old style was bad because it required "deep math skills" is wrong headed. Computer science *requires* deep math skills; computer science is a branch of mathematics essentially. The writer wants us to focus on logic, but logic is mathematics!
Well, you can also say accounting is mathematics since it's a practical application of numbers but it's a very slim branch that doesn't have much overlap with math class. Most the software I've worked with didn't have all that much algorithmic complexity, they had a process complexity which was more like making sure all the money went into all the right accounts. From a mathematical point of view every result is valid, but in the real world only one is correct.
Most the fuck-ups I see are the result of poor process planning. For example code that tries to do things out of order and use a result that isn't ready yet, or ends up using the same temp area/table or fails to properly handle errors and such. The other part is simply sloppy handling of boundary conditions, ranges and enumerations, like using "less than" where you meant "less than and equal". Or that you have a list of cases, but no panic when it gets a value it didn't expect because somebody changed the logic. You had "Yes, no" and now it's "Yes, tentative, no" and the code suddenly does nothing or nonsense.
Yes, you do need to understand boolean logic, simple loops and a few other things but you often don't need the deep algebraic understanding, like you're not solving polynomials or dealing with complex numbers. Unfortunately visual programming sucks even worse at this than traditional programming, because all those corner cases with unavailable resources, bad input data and so on tend to clutter up the design something awful. Mostly you just program the good path and anything that strays crashes and burns.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's start by toning down the hyperbole. No one is advocating that everyone be armed. Please stop repeating this.
As long as there's people with guns and people without guns, there'll be situations where people without guns get mowed down by people with guns. And every single time the solution is more guns to more people in more places. Where does it end? Do you think a bunch of drunken people at a night club armed with guns is a good idea? You think 6-8 years olds with guns is okay? You think 9yos should be firing Uzis? There is no end for some people, not until every toddler and up is armed 24x7. Unless they don't want to, but then they're naive for not wanting to since they can't stop the bad guys. Yes, there are those who want to push guns into the hands of all that are reluctant too, just like they won't eat broccoli.
That explains how systemd worked, too. Systemd talked a lot with the people who write startup scripts, at both redhat and debian. They tried to be responsive to their concerns, and give them what they wanted, which is why systemD succeeded. Just as notable is who is missing from the dialog: the actual users. Which explains why systemd made startup-script writers happy, and a bunch of users upset.
But do (non-paying, non-contributing) users really matter? Debian has their "do-ocracy", those who do the job decide what to do and how to do it. Linus has been saying much the same about the kernel:
Jim Zemlin: Let's look a level deeper at the social interaction because open source is often described as this sort of democratizing process that, you know, everyone has a say, there's this grand consensus, but at the end of the day, needs to be some sort of decisiveness when it comes to making decisions. How do you deal with that?
Linus Torvalds: Well, I mean, it's really not a democracy at all and some people call it a meritocracy which is not necessarily correct either. It's - I have a policy that he who does the code gets to decide, which basically boils down to there's a - it's very easy to complain and talk about issues and it's also easy for me to say, 'You should solve it this way.'
But at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is actual code and the technology itself and the people who are not willing to step up and write that code, they can comment on it and they can say it should be done this way or that way or they won't, but in the end their voice doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is code.
And it turns out people are lazy, so most people are much happier just arguing and quite often you only have one set of - one example code and there's not a lot of real choice there. You - there's not a lot of people who are competent enough to really do kernel programming and also not lazy enough that they actually get the job done.
As an end user, I've certainly had situations which pretty much amounts to "we don't give a shit", "you got what you paid for" and "if you don't like it, do it yourself". If application developers and system administrators get a taste of their own sour medicine, maybe they'll figure out what I did - your voice is pretty worthless. What you get is the scraps of whatever itch the developer had that overlaps with yours, if they don't care about your use case then tough luck. Those who do will do whatever they want to do, the rest will have to suck it up. Kettle, meet Poettering.
Well we don't let kids buy porn magazines and we don't let kids buy liquor and we don't let them buy guns, it's not like third parties can disclaim any and all liability for everything because if the parents weren't there to stop them it must have been okay. Not saying I completely disagree with you, but the whole "the copyright holders have the primary responsibility so they have the sole responsibility" logic doesn't add up.
Well, except the whole part about "the cloud" is that you don't particularly know or care where the server is, who's running it or who's got admin access. It just scales up and down, they provision something for you somewhere on some hardware. If you only look at external hackers then sure internet facing == internet facing and if that's the only threat scenario you care about, fine. Go put it in the cloud.
We have evidence that ordinary cells have a finite number of divisions due to telomeres, but we also know there's an enzyme called telomerase that can extend them. This remains active in egg and sperm cells so we can continue to go on as a species forever and for normal life spans there's enough divisions in ordinary cells. In the lab, we've extended normal cells' lifetime way past their ordinary limit with telomerase. So why don't we have immortal cells by default? It's probably a fail safe, if a cell starts reproducing extremely fast without working around this limit it'll fizzle and become little more than a harmless lump.
There's some indications that as we push for 100+ year lifespans we might be running out of divisions leading to among other things a weaker immune system because we lack white blood cells. It might be that we will develop telomere extension therapy to give us a few more regenerations (hello Dr. Who), but as you can probably tell the main problem today is that cells start dividing like crazy, not that they stop dividing. And if we made all cells immortal with genetic manipulation, all it'd take is one cell short circuiting the reproduction speed to cause cancer and kill the host. So if we want natural immortality we need to find a way to stop that first or we'll all die of cancer instead of aging.
I might be convinced that it's somehow earth's method of population control, that if lifespans are shortened so the overall population is more manageable or something along those lines;
Doesn't really work that way, if people reproduce at 30 and die at 50 or 100 or 200 that only adds a constant factor to the total population. It might lead to one-time "fill-up" effects where new children are born and old people die later because of longer lifespan adjusting that factor, but the only long term control on population is the reproduction rate. And during reproductive growth the young outnumber the old simply because there's more in this generation than in the last.
This is why people are no longer so extremely worried about population explosion, birth rates are way down and trending down but due to an aging population and advances in healthcare we will become closer to 10 billion. Europe and North America is below replacement fertility but still growing because of this, Asia and Latin American spot on, Oceania slightly above and then there's Africa which is still way high but below the world average from 1950-1970.
High reproduction is also related to extreme poverty, basically if you need many children to support you when you grow older it is "necessary" to have many. Sure most people still like to have kids but only a few and not a whole bunch. China and India seem to be pulling people out of extreme poverty quite quick, so I think they're moving into "safer" territory there. Africa is again challenging, you have countries like Nigera still in explosive growth and GDP per capita barely increasing, only 60% of the population is even literate.
That said, they're seeing a communications revolution in the last decade in Africa, from almost nobody having a cell phone almost everyone has one, smartphone penetration is low but not absent. I think that'll have a big effect on education and literacy but it'll take a few decades to really show net results. With the exception of certain retards in the Middle East that want to bring us back to the Dark Ages, things are actually progressing quite well. A bit worried about mass surveillance and authoritarian states, but not overpopulation and lack of basic necessities.
That's horribly naive. Even if the interface claims that it's "off," there is no proof and no reason whatsoever to trust it. Trust comes from being able to read the source code (all of it), compile it yourself, and load it on the device. Nothing less.
Without the hardware schematics and someone who can verify them there's no way to know what the hardware really does no matter what software you load on it. For example say there's a secret 1kB buffer that'll store the last 32 AES256 or 64 AES128 keys you've used with AES-NI, totally invisible. If you place the right 256-bit magic value in registers R12-R15 and call RDRAND, instead of doing its usual thing then and only then will it dump the keys out to you as "random" bits XOR'd with a second secret value. You can verify the source all day, you can audit the system in production, you can search for the keys popping up in memory and you'll find nothing.
I would think the opposite situation is more dangerous, you review something under NDA but the features/quality/price isn't right then a few years later you want to make something in the same ballpark and you get sued. If developing it in-house still is an option I wouldn't do it, only if you were trying to pick which third party to buy. Then you have a plausible excuse that yes, we bought your competitor and of course their technology is fairly similar to yours but nothing illegal happened here. Even though I'm sure someone took notes on what features they were missing that could be added to the company they did buy.
This man's kid got brutally killed by a terror organization continuing to spread propaganda and recruitment material, I'd call that a valid excuse for being angry and irrational kicking in every direction. Now if this guy actually won that'd be a different story, but the legal system is going to say "we sympathize wth your loss, but no". In fact, if it wasn't so grim he'd be laughed out of court. I'm not sure how that would be "devolving" anything, would it be more "evolved" if he went postal in a mosque? Because I kinda got the impression you seem to think the problem is we don't fight back. At least not in the same way.
This also adds a single point of failure to all ISP offerings.
True, but most areas with fiber effectively become single-supply since there's very, very little incentive to lay down a second fiber grid. At least here in Norway they'll usually get 70-90% to sign up and the other fixed offers go away since mobile broadband usually works as a temporary solution. And they certainly could do redundant connections and data centers for everything but the last leg, so one guy with a backhoe can't take out more than a small neighborhood. In practice though peering points tend to concentrate anyway, there's a few hubs where almost every major ISPs is represented, they're there because everyone else is there - literally network effects at work.
and we would somehow have to send and receive a beam (because sending one way is useless) when there is no way to guarantee where the other point will be due to all the exotic forces in the universe. Sounds like magic.
While we don't exactly understand why the stars seem to be affected by a gravitational pull from dark matter, doesn't mean we can't measure the relative motion with a very high degree of accuracy. It is highly likely that our ability to predict the source of a transmission and the place we'd need to aim to reply - down to arc-milliseconds - far exceeds our ability to focus a beam so narrowly.
Musk has said that mankind's long term future lies in colonizing the solar system. Setting up a doomed-to-fail Mars experiment is a good way to discourage people to do that : he's too smart for that.
He's smart, but he could become blinded by how important the colonization is to him and start thinking the ends justifies the means and overestimate the public's willingness to risk lives and underestimate the backlash from dead astronauts or settlers. Not as in doomed to fail, but that his idea of acceptable risk might not be the same as the general public's, which absolutely have the power to shut him down if they feel he's playing fast and loose with human lives. Even if the numbers don't come close to the losses in Iraq or Afghanistan, don't expect people to be rational about it even though this is arguably far more important for the human race.
He completely forgot to code after just six years, after having been able to code well enough to completely automate his job six years into the future...
Yeah it's like:
a) Short of a brain hemorrhage or stroke, you totally forget to code
b) You got a crystal ball good enough to predict six years ahead
c) You can code well enough to automate it already now
d) All of the above
Totally believable.
The new nVidia GPUs have quite high TDP sadly... Will these new AMD ones go as low as the GTX 750 Ti? Those were great for fanless operation.
Some models will, but almost certainly not the RX480. I think the suggestion is roughly GTX950 performance for 50W, nVidia lists the power draw of a 750 Ti as 60W. Of course these are all marketing slides, not third party reviews but yeah the power savings from 28nm to 14nm are substantial.
I don't know whether there is something sinister emerging in the financials which the public can't see, but both Sony and MS seem to be spooked in a way that the numbers don't quite support
Well if there's any sinister in the financials, I'd suggest it is AMD begging/tricking them to make a new round of consoles so they can earn some more money. Maybe they've stealthily planted the idea that the other company was going to launch a half-gen console creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, maybe they offered a deal too good to refuse. It's no secret that AMD needs money to stay afloat....
What are you talking about? All of these mass murders in the last 6 months have been by Islamists and half of them were outside of the US. France has some of the strictest gun laws in the world. People were mowed down with AK-47s anyway. Belgium they got the same effect with bombs. You people talking as if this is a U.S. problem with guns are going to cost more people's lives.
I think the US has a gun problem, but not particularly related to terrorism or heavy organized crime, not even premediated murder. If you really want to commit mass murder or pull off an armed heist, it's possible to get guns in Europe too. And if you just want to kill your ex, there's other weapons that'll work in close proximity but not start a killing spree. It's the more everyday crime like burglary, mugging and robbery or conflicts at home or at work that didn't have to escalate into anyone getting shot and killed which make up the bulk of the difference. And I don't think more guns stop the big killing sprees because they'll hit soft spots and there'll always be soft spots, you can't protect everyone like you do the President. So in sum I think it's a net loss, for every time you stopped a shooter there were three "shooters" stopped by not having a gun.
he seemed more homophobic than radicalised
Most people who think homosexuality is something horrible think so because Abrahamic religions in general and Islam in particular have been saying that for 2000 years. But it might have been more "the enemy (IS) of my enemy (gays) is my friend" than any deep religious commitment. Doesn't matter, I doubt all the people who fought for the Nazis were die-hard ideologists either.
Many atheists treat the non-existence of god(s) like a fact just like the religious treat the existence as fact, that their belief is the only right belief and all other beliefs are wrong. Sure, atheists have no religious practices but they can be just as insistent on spreading their belief, shutting down alternate beliefs and intolerant of those who believe differently than themselves. As much as it'd probably be more scientifically correct to be an agnostic I have problems respecting people who believe in adult fairy tales just like superstition and astrology or that there's goblins and gremlins. I can't prove it, but yeah... I'm going to act like this is all a bunch of mumbo-jumbo with no basis in reality.
Well it might have meant that she didn't want her name published, so that she'd forever be the terrorist's ex-wife on Google. The statements themselves hardly seem like the kind you need protection of anonymity to say.
The messiness of the whole fay marriage fight and the rise in popularity of intolerance in national discourse was a big factor in my initial response and this could go a long way to heal that rift.
I'm sure Sookie Stackhouse will be glad, but I didn't know you guys took True Blood that seriously...
We need to capture people like Mateen alive, so that their minds can be disassembled using the latest techniques to root out the ISIS command trees in Western countries. Every dead terrorist is a good terrorist, but it's also one we can't get information from.
How much of a "command structure" do you need for a lone gunman? If he contacted IS - which is as of yet unclear, or if he just pledged to join their fight - there's no guarantee that he knew anyone or had anyone local who had turned him into a radical. He was angry and wanted to shoot up a gay club, since this is the US he already had the guns so is there any indication IS was more involved than *thumbsup*? This was not Paris or Brussels with many attackers and IEDs, there's no indication this was really organized or trained in any way.
Those who accept "reasonable" exceptions to the Second Amendment should not be surprised when "reasonable" exceptions to the Fourth (or any other) Amendment are also accepted.
If the first amendment didn't have exceptions, threats, fraud, libel, slander, false advertisement, grooming and a ton of other crimes couldn't be crimes. Heck, I could order a hit man to kill you. The truth is, the bill of rights sucks as a legal document by any modern standard. Almost no term is defined, it says you will have "due process" but what that means is only vaguely guessed from contemporary documents, which can obviously contain conflicting and controversial meanings that might not reflect what Congress meant.
It's a great propaganda flyer, this is how the US will be different from the British, these are values we cherish and hold dear and it's written in terms and a structure so simple an 18th century man might understand his rights. But as an actual piece of legislation that a court has to try to deal with, it's in desperate need of interpretation. And that's not the sign of well written law.
Too bad Google's on the wrong side of history here.
Considering history is written by the winners and all the rich and powerful are in favor of TPP, I wouldn't bet on it. Google's on top now, they make lots of money and can deal with the overhead of the DMCA, the "right to be forgotten" and various rules and requirements. They know their startup competitors will struggle more than they do, it's securing their own business.
Well, that's one way of looking at it. The other is that Microsoft had to cater to the lowest common denominator with big scary warning dialogs when you did something potentially stupid. And that they did that because it was new and people were ignorant, but that as a computer literate generation grew up they thought they could start taking off the training wheels. I mean, it's not like Linux gives you much warning when you break shit, yeah you might have to invoke sudo but that is the universal "trust me, I know what I'm doing" code word. And of course you'll take the shit in the forums if you don't know what you're doing, but reality is people use computers despite that. Personally I think the current button is fine, I need a choice not a lecture.
The idea that the old style was bad because it required "deep math skills" is wrong headed. Computer science *requires* deep math skills; computer science is a branch of mathematics essentially. The writer wants us to focus on logic, but logic is mathematics!
Well, you can also say accounting is mathematics since it's a practical application of numbers but it's a very slim branch that doesn't have much overlap with math class. Most the software I've worked with didn't have all that much algorithmic complexity, they had a process complexity which was more like making sure all the money went into all the right accounts. From a mathematical point of view every result is valid, but in the real world only one is correct.
Most the fuck-ups I see are the result of poor process planning. For example code that tries to do things out of order and use a result that isn't ready yet, or ends up using the same temp area/table or fails to properly handle errors and such. The other part is simply sloppy handling of boundary conditions, ranges and enumerations, like using "less than" where you meant "less than and equal". Or that you have a list of cases, but no panic when it gets a value it didn't expect because somebody changed the logic. You had "Yes, no" and now it's "Yes, tentative, no" and the code suddenly does nothing or nonsense.
Yes, you do need to understand boolean logic, simple loops and a few other things but you often don't need the deep algebraic understanding, like you're not solving polynomials or dealing with complex numbers. Unfortunately visual programming sucks even worse at this than traditional programming, because all those corner cases with unavailable resources, bad input data and so on tend to clutter up the design something awful. Mostly you just program the good path and anything that strays crashes and burns.